Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (27)
- First Amendment (27)
- Legal History (5)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (3)
- Commercial Law (2)
-
- Comparative and Foreign Law (2)
- Courts (2)
- Intellectual Property Law (2)
- Second Amendment (2)
- Torts (2)
- Communication (1)
- Communications Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Philosophy (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Education (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- Social Influence and Political Communication (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 105
Full-Text Articles in Law
Protecting Women's Voices: Preventing Retaliatory Defamation Claims In The #Metoo Context, Nicole Ligon
Protecting Women's Voices: Preventing Retaliatory Defamation Claims In The #Metoo Context, Nicole Ligon
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The First Amendment And Algorithms, Stuart M. Benjamin
The First Amendment And Algorithms, Stuart M. Benjamin
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
"The Road I Can't Help Travelling": Holmes On Truth And Persuadability, Joseph Blocher
"The Road I Can't Help Travelling": Holmes On Truth And Persuadability, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Free Speech And Justified True Belief, Joseph Blocher
Free Speech And Justified True Belief, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
Law often prioritizes justified true beliefs. Evidence, even if probative and correct, must have a proper foundation. Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. Prosecutors are not permitted to trick juries into convicting a defendant, even if that defendant is truly guilty. Judges’ reasons, and not just the correctness of their holdings, are the engines of precedent. Lawyers are, in short, familiar with the notion that one must be right for the right reasons.
And yet the standard epistemic theory of the First Amendment—that the marketplace of ideas is the “best test of truth”—has generally …
Who Tells Your Story: The Legality Of And Shift In Racial Preferences Within Casting Practices, Nicole Ligon
Who Tells Your Story: The Legality Of And Shift In Racial Preferences Within Casting Practices, Nicole Ligon
Faculty Scholarship
Expressing racial preferences in casting calls and hiring practices is nothing new. Producers of television shows, movies, and Broadway musicals have regularly and explicitly sought to hire actors and actresses with certain physical characteristics, including race, in casting their productions. And, given that the industry seemingly accepted this standard when it favored white talent, the public heard little about it. To the extent controversy arose, courts quelled concerns in a swift and easy fashion, without consideration of the societal harms or impacts that stereotyped or limited portrayals of minorities in entertainment could have on the public’s perception of people of …
Beyond The Bosses' Constitution: The First Amendment And Class Entrenchment, Jedediah Purdy
Beyond The Bosses' Constitution: The First Amendment And Class Entrenchment, Jedediah Purdy
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s “weaponized” First Amendment has been its strongest antiregulatory tool in recent decades, slashing campaign-finance regulation, public-sector union financing, and pharmaceutical regulation, and threatening a broader remit. Along with others, I have previously criticized these developments as a “new Lochnerism.” In this Essay, part of a Columbia Law Review Symposium, I press beyond these criticisms to diagnose the ideological outlook of these opinions and to propose an alternative. The leading decisions of the antiregulatory First Amendment often associate free speech with a vision of market efficiency; but, I argue, closer to their heart is antistatist fear of entrenchment …
New Problems For Subsidized Speech, Joseph Blocher
New Problems For Subsidized Speech, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
The constitutionality of conditional offers from the government is a transsubstantive issue with broad and growing practical implications, but it has always been a particular problem for free speech. Recent developments suggest at least three new approaches to the problem, but no easy solutions to it. The first approach would permit conditions that define the limits of the government spending program, while forbidding conditions that leverage funding so as to regulate speech outside the contours of the program. This is an appealing distinction, but runs into some of the same challenges as public forum analysis. The second approach would treat …
Common Sense And Key Questions, Stuart M. Benjamin
Common Sense And Key Questions, Stuart M. Benjamin
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Algorithms And Speech, Stuart M. Benjamin
Algorithms And Speech, Stuart M. Benjamin
Faculty Scholarship
One of the central questions in free speech jurisprudence is what activities the First Amendment encompasses. This Article considers that question in the context of an area of increasing importance – algorithm-based decisions. I begin by looking to broadly accepted legal sources, which for the First Amendment means primarily Supreme Court jurisprudence. That jurisprudence provides for very broad First Amendment coverage, and the Court has reinforced that breadth in recent cases. Under the Court’s jurisprudence the First Amendment (and the heightened scrutiny it entails) would apply to many algorithm-based decisions, specifically those entailing substantive communications. We could of course adopt …
Analogies And Institutions In The First And Second Amendments: A Response To Professor Magarian, Darrell A.H. Miller
Analogies And Institutions In The First And Second Amendments: A Response To Professor Magarian, Darrell A.H. Miller
Faculty Scholarship
In this essay, Professor Darrell Miller responds to Professor Gregory Magarian's criticism of the manner in which judges, advocates, and scholars have used the First Amendment to frame Second Amendment interpretive questions.
La Interseccion De La Responsabilidad Extracontractual Y El Derecho Constitucional Y Los Derechos Humanos, George C. Christie
La Interseccion De La Responsabilidad Extracontractual Y El Derecho Constitucional Y Los Derechos Humanos, George C. Christie
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Implementing First Amendment Institutionalism, Joseph Blocher
Implementing First Amendment Institutionalism, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Nonsense And The Freedom Of Speech: What Meaning Means For The First Amendment, Joseph Blocher
Nonsense And The Freedom Of Speech: What Meaning Means For The First Amendment, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
A great deal of everyday expression is, strictly speaking, nonsense. But courts and scholars have done little to consider whether or why such meaningless speech, like nonrepresentational art, falls within “the freedom of speech.” If, as many suggest, meaning is what separates speech from sound and expression from conduct, then the constitutional case for nonsense is complicated. And because nonsense is so common, the case is also important — artists like Lewis Carroll and Jackson Pollock are not the only putative “speakers” who should be concerned about the outcome.
This Article is the first to explore thoroughly the relationship between …
Public Discourse, Expert Knowledge, And The Press, Joseph Blocher
Public Discourse, Expert Knowledge, And The Press, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
This Essay identifies and elaborates two complications raised by Robert Post’s Democracy, Expertise, and Academic Freedom, and in doing so attempts to show how Post’s theory can account for constitutional protection of the press. The first complication is a potential circularity arising from the relationships between the concepts of democratic legitimation, public discourse, and protected social practices. Democratic legitimation predicates First Amendment coverage on participation in public discourse, whose boundaries are defined as those social practices necessary for the formation of public opinion. But close examination of the relationships between these three concepts raises the question of whether public discourse …
Second Things First: What Free Speech Can And Can’T Say About Guns, Joseph Blocher
Second Things First: What Free Speech Can And Can’T Say About Guns, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
Professor Blocher responds to Gregory Magarian’s article on the implications of the First Amendment for the Second.
Aiming At The Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test For Personal Jurisdiction In Internet Defamation Cases, Sarah H. Ludington
Aiming At The Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test For Personal Jurisdiction In Internet Defamation Cases, Sarah H. Ludington
Faculty Scholarship
In Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), the Fourth Circuit crafted a jurisdictional test for Internet defamation that requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant specifically targeted an audience in the forum state for the state to exercise jurisdiction. This test relies on the presumption that the Internet — which is accessible everywhere — is targeted nowhere; it strongly protects foreign libel defendants who have published on the Internet from being sued outside of their home states. Other courts, including the North Carolina Court of Appeals, have since adopted or applied the test. The …
Sorrell V. Ims Health And The End Of The Constitutional Double Standard, Ernest A. Young
Sorrell V. Ims Health And The End Of The Constitutional Double Standard, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Transmitting, Editing, And Communicating: Determining What “The Freedom Of Speech” Encompasses, Stuart Minor Benjamin
Transmitting, Editing, And Communicating: Determining What “The Freedom Of Speech” Encompasses, Stuart Minor Benjamin
Duke Law Journal
How much can one say with confidence about what constitutes "the freedom of speech" that Congress shall not abridge? In this Article, I address that question in the context of the transmission of speech specifically, the regulation of Internet access known as net neutrality. This question has implications both for the future of economic regulation, as more and more activity involves the transmission of bits, and for First Amendment interpretation. As for the latter, the question is what a lawyer or judge can conclude without having to choose among competing conceptions of speech. How far can a basic legal toolkit …
Myspace, Yourspace, But Not Theirspace: The Constitutionality Of Banning Sex Offenders From Social Networking Sites, Jasmine S. Wynton
Myspace, Yourspace, But Not Theirspace: The Constitutionality Of Banning Sex Offenders From Social Networking Sites, Jasmine S. Wynton
Duke Law Journal
In recent years there has been intense public pressure to enact increasingly restrictive and intrusive sex offender laws. The regulation of sex offenders has now moved online, where a growing amount of protected expression and activity occurs. The latest trend in sex offender policy has been the passage of state laws prohibiting sex offenders from visiting social networking sites, such as Myspace or Facebook. The use of these websites implicates the First Amendment right of expressive association. Broad social-networking-site bans threaten the First Amendment expressive association rights of sex offenders, who do not lose all of their constitutional rights by …
“There Is Something Unique … About The Government Funding Of The Arts For First Amendment Purposes”: An Institutional Approach To Granting Government Entities Free Speech Rights, Leslie Cooper Mahaffey
“There Is Something Unique … About The Government Funding Of The Arts For First Amendment Purposes”: An Institutional Approach To Granting Government Entities Free Speech Rights, Leslie Cooper Mahaffey
Duke Law Journal
The common understanding of the First Amendment is that its purpose is primarily libertarian, serving to protect private citizens' expression from government censorship. In the modern era, however, the government's pervasive presence-especially in the role of funder of private activity-has blurred the lines between governmental and private speech. Further, the relatively new, increasingly influential government speech doctrine-which dictates that the government will not be subjected to First Amendment scrutiny when it is engaging in communication-has been the Supreme Court's guidepost of late when the Court has been confronted with a case involving expression with both private and public elements. The …
How To Create International Law: The Case Of Internet Freedom In China, Katherine Tsai
How To Create International Law: The Case Of Internet Freedom In China, Katherine Tsai
Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law
No abstract provided.
Crisis In The Legal Profession: Don’T Mourn, Organize!, Michael E. Tigar
Crisis In The Legal Profession: Don’T Mourn, Organize!, Michael E. Tigar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Viewpoint Neutrality And Government Speech, Joseph Blocher
Viewpoint Neutrality And Government Speech, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
Government speech creates a paradox at the heart of the First Amendment. To satisfy traditional First Amendment tests, the government must show that it is not discriminating against a viewpoint. And yet if the government shows that it is condemning or supporting a viewpoint, it may be able to invoke the government speech defense and thereby avoid constitutional scrutiny altogether. Government speech doctrine therefore rewards what the rest of the First Amendment forbids: viewpoint discrimination against private speech. This is both a theoretical puzzle and an increasingly important practical problem. In cases like Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, the …
The Dogs That Did Not Bark: The Silence Of The Legal Academy During World War Ii, Sarah H. Ludington
The Dogs That Did Not Bark: The Silence Of The Legal Academy During World War Ii, Sarah H. Ludington
Faculty Scholarship
During World War II, the legal academy was virtually uncritical of the government’s conduct of the war, despite some obvious domestic abuses of civil rights, such as the internment of Japanese-Americans. This silence has largely been ignored in the literature about the history of legal education. This Article argues that there are many strands of causation for this silence. On an obvious level, World War II was a popular war fought against a fascist threat, and left-leaning academics generally supported the war. On a less obvious level, law school enrollment plummeted during the war, and the numbers of full-time law …
Transforming Property Into Speech, Joseph Blocher
Transforming Property Into Speech, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Karen Carpenter V. Westwood One And Tom Leykis: Free Speech, Defamation, And The Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress—Does Logic Rescue Decency?, Jack B. Mcgee
Alaska Law Review
No abstract provided.
Antitrust Censorship Of Economic Protest, Hillary Greene
Antitrust Censorship Of Economic Protest, Hillary Greene
Duke Law Journal
Antitrust law accepts the competitive marketplace, its operation, and its outcomes as an ideal. Society itself need not and does not. Although antitrust is not in the business of evaluating, for example, the "fairness" of prices, society can, and frequently does, properly concern itself with these issues. When dissatisfaction results, it may manifest itself in an expressive boycott: a form of social campaign wherein purchasers express their dissatisfaction by collectively refusing to buy. Antitrust should neither participate in nor censor such normative discourse. In this Article, I explain how antitrust law impedes this speech, argue why it should not, and …
Cybersieves, Derek E. Bambauer
Cybersieves, Derek E. Bambauer
Duke Law Journal
This Article offers a process-based method to assess Internet censorship that is compatible with different value sets about what content should be blocked. Whereas China's Internet censorship receives considerable attention, censorship in the United States and other democratic countries is largely ignored. The Internet is increasingly fragmented by nations' different value judgments about what content is unacceptable. Countries differ not in their intent to censor material-from political dissent in Iran to copyrighted songs in America-but in the content they target, how precisely they block it, and how involved their citizens are in these choices. Previous scholars have analyzed Internet censorship …
Constraining Public Employee Speech: Government’S Control Of Its Workers’ Speech To Protect Its Own Expression, Helen Norton
Constraining Public Employee Speech: Government’S Control Of Its Workers’ Speech To Protect Its Own Expression, Helen Norton
Duke Law Journal
This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts' treatment Of public employees' First Amendment claims-a shift that imperils the public's interest in transparent government as well as the free speech rights of more than twenty million government workers. In the past, courts interpreted the First Amendment to permit governmental discipline of public employee speech on matters of public interest only when such speech undermined the government employer's interest in efficiently providing public services. In contrast, courts now increasingly focus on-and defer to-government's claim to control its workers' expression to protect its own speech. More specifically, courts increasingly permit government …
Remembering Democracy In The Debate Over Election Reform, Matthew Michael Calabria
Remembering Democracy In The Debate Over Election Reform, Matthew Michael Calabria
Duke Law Journal
In FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment right to free speech because the statute restricted a form of political speech known as issue advocacy. In attempting to protect this right from government intrusion, however, the Court improperly excluded considerations of democracy from its free speech analysis. The opinion consequently misrepresented the nature of the right to free speech for two independent but related reasons. First, because preserving a well-functioning democracy is the primary reason free speech is protected, the right to free …